'What about building 7'?

[Dave Rogers]

You said that the steel temp would rise even after the fire has moved on.
If you think conduction would raise the temperature of the steel that was heated after the fire source has been exhuasted, you are hallucinating or you live in a parallel universe, in which basic principles of science are reversed.

I see you've done lots of thermal modelling to have drawn so confident a conclusion.

Heat propagates outward from a source. Its rate of propagation depends on the thermal conductivity of the material it propagates through. If a fire heats up a material of relatively low thermal conductivity but high thermal mass, then a localised heat reservoir is created. Heat will propagate outwards from this reservoir even when the heat source is removed, and nearby materials of higher thermal conductivity - for example, a steel support beam under a concrete floor - will therefore experience an increase in temperature even after the removal of the heat source.

Understanding this sort of thing is extremely difficult, and requires detailed analysis of the heat source and the structure around it. Computer simulations have, in recent years, made it at least possible, but it's still extremely complex and requires a great deal of computing power for a structure of significant size and complexity. Fortunately, NIST has done some modelling, and reported its results in detail. Some of their findings may appear counter-intuitive, but this is not particularly surprising given the complexity of the situation.

But it's important not to take too much notice of the ignorant and uneducated, who frequently confuse a counter-intuitive situation that follows inevitably from the laws of science with one in which the basic principles of science are reversed. The commonest cause for this is that they don't actually know what any of the basic principles of science actually are.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

You said that the steel temp would rise even after the fire has moved on.
If you think conduction would raise the temperature of the steel that was heated after the fire source has been exhuasted, you are hallucinating or you live in a parallel universe, in which basic principles of science are reversed.

Two words for you: "heat soak".

The fact that an internal combustion engine will boil over after the heat source (the burning of gasoline) is shut off is another example of the same phenomena.

When a local fire goes out in a building, the heat that is stored in the mass of the structure doesn't magically disappear, it continues to move by conduction to heat the cooler parts of the structure.

Expansion starts with degree#1 and is constant per foot and per degree up to the temperature at which the steel softens. It was the expansion of beams that caused WTC7 to collapse.

 

[Sabretooth]

There was also twenty trillion dollars (IIRC) of gold in the basement.

GOLD!! GOOOOOLD!!

Why make Trillions, when we could make Billions?!

 

[Sabretooth]

I have to say that is absolutely too incredible to be believable!

What medium or item can cut structural steel, in multiple places, with precision, that not only is very quiet, but also does not produce a blinding flash of light, is fire-proof, and can be applied without being detected either before, during, or after it's use?

As long as this question goes even partially unanswered, the CD theory is dead.

Incredible, indeed.

 

[cooperman]

I have read the report. It does not specify, that ican see that that particular girder was critical. By critical, i mean that that one girder was what caused the inner collapse of the floors 13 to 5.

I am only wasting your time if you choose to reply.

TAM

YOu have not read the report or you would know the collapse sequence.

Up to 5 floor beams expanded pushing the girder beteen 79 and 44. This caused the floor 13 collapse.

The beams, according to nist, were heated to 600 degrees (thats celsius). Can you imagine how the beams reached 600 degrees at 5:20pm, when the fire in that area was out by 4pm? No, neither can NIST, which is why they pretended in their fire simulation that there was still fire in that area.

 

[BigAl]

YOu have not read the report or you would know the collapse sequence.

Up to 5 floor beams expanded pushing the girder beteen 79 and 44. This caused the floor 13 collapse.

The beams, according to nist, were heated to 600 degrees (thats celsius). Can you imagine how the beams reached 600 degrees at 5:20pm, when the fire in that area was out by 4pm?

heat soak.

Nothing about the collapse surprises any eyewitness or anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

 

[cooperman]

heat soak.

Nothing about the collapse surprises any eyewitness or anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

Do you agree that the NIST fire simulation is wrong?


Their simulation at 2pm has no fires on the east side on floor 12 but a photograph of the east side shows copious flames coming out of the east windows of floor 12 at 2pm.

They then have fire around column 79 at 5pm, which contradicts a photograph that they admitted in Appendix L showed that the fires in the east side were out by 4:45pm. IN fact the photo shows no fire at 4pm.

If you cannot admit that the fire simulation is wrong then your game here is denial. The evidence is there. It is irrefutable. If you believe it is wrong then tell me why.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What medium or item can cut structural steel, in multiple places, with precision, that not only is very quiet, but also does not produce a blinding flash of light, is fire-proof, and can be applied without being detected either before, during, or after it's use?

A gang of of hacksaw-wielding suicide steelwrights with oil cans?

Dave

 

[T.A.M.]

YOu have not read the report or you would know the collapse sequence.

Up to 5 floor beams expanded pushing the girder beteen 79 and 44. This caused the floor 13 collapse.

The beams, according to nist, were heated to 600 degrees (thats celsius). Can you imagine how the beams reached 600 degrees at 5:20pm, when the fire in that area was out by 4pm? No, neither can NIST, which is why they pretended in their fire simulation that there was still fire in that area.

A
Nowhere in the above do i see the reference to floor 12. Why don't we settle that and carry on from there. This is the basis of your theory, and your complaint about what NIST was allegedly lying about. So far you have danced around it.

TAM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Have you anything more to say about One Meridian Plaza, cooperman?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Their simulation at 2pm has no fires on the east side on floor 12 but a photograph of the east side shows copious flames coming out of the east windows of floor 12 at 2pm.

Can you provide a link to the photograph please, with confirmation of the time it was taken? The report says that fire was first observed on floor 12 at 2:10pm, which doesn't contradict the simulation.

They then have fire around column 79 at 5pm, which contradicts a photograph that they admitted in Appendix L showed that the fires in the east side were out by 4:45pm. IN fact the photo shows no fire at 4pm.

My copy of NCSTAR1-9 has appendices from A to E. Can you check this please? It appears from the upper layer gas temperatures that the model doesn't predict fire near the outside of the building at 5pm; column 79, where high temperatures are predicted, is well inside the building. But, in any case, the diagrams are of gas temperatures rather than flame locations; it isn't clear to me from any of the figures where flames would actually be visible.

If you cannot admit that the fire simulation is wrong then your game here is denial. The evidence is there. It is irrefutable. If you believe it is wrong then tell me why.

Firstly, you're looking at gas temperature plots and inferring fire distribution from them; I'm not sure how reliable a process that is. Secondly, you're suggesting that, if the fire simulation does not reproduce every observation precisely, then it's completely wrong. In reality, any simulation is an approximation; the question is whether it's a good enough approximation to predict behaviour correctly. In this instance, NIST ran variations on the simulation conditions and found that the variation on the end result was negligible; the building still collapsed. This suggests that, while not exactly right in every detail, the simulation was good enough to predict the general behaviour of the building; specifically, that the fires resulted in its collapse.

Dave

 

[BigAl]

Do you agree that the NIST fire simulation is wrong?

No. Don't confuse visible flame and temperature.

I'm not a fire scientist even given my university physics and structures courses. You aren't a fire scientist either.

The two fire scientists I've heard address WTC and man-made demolition and can explain why you are wrong.

Why do you doubt the opinions of the many eyewitness that do have relevant expertise and first-hand knowledge of how WTC7 collapsed? These people say it was fire.

There are no eyewitnesses that say that anything but unfought fire was the reason for the collapse.
Nothing about the collapse surprises any eyewitness or anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

 

[T.A.M.]

Page 19 of the report....

The girder on floor 13...not floor 12

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

Do you agree that the NIST fire simulation is wrong?


Their simulation at 2pm has no fires on the east side on floor 12 but a photograph of the east side shows copious flames coming out of the east windows of floor 12 at 2pm.

They then have fire around column 79 at 5pm, which contradicts a photograph that they admitted in Appendix L showed that the fires in the east side were out by 4:45pm. IN fact the photo shows no fire at 4pm.

If you cannot admit that the fire simulation is wrong then your game here is denial. The evidence is there. It is irrefutable. If you believe it is wrong then tell me why.

Huh?

Actual text from NIST report NCSTAR 1A - Pg 20:

The fire on the 12th floor followed a path similar to that of the fire on the 11th floor, but with different timing. Fire was first seen on the 12th floor at 2:08pm, toward the south end of the east face. Further south on the face, the window glass was still intact, indicating that this fire has burned in the building interior as it turned the southeast corner.

Hilite mine. Did you not read the NIST report? I'm really starting to suspect you haven't, and are solely basing your arguments on the BS they're dropping at AE911T.

 

[T.A.M.]

Cooperman, the premise of your entire new theory is based on the girder and support component of floor 12 having no fire at the time of event initiation, and that this is critical to the collapse, yet you have provided no evidence that NIST stated that the girder on floor 12 was critical. In fact page 19 of the report focuses on the girder of floor 13 as one of the elements that led to the collapseof floor 13, which then started the internal floor collapses that led to unspupported column 79 buckling.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Ok, i think there is some miscommunication here.

The theory, as best as i am getting now, that the truthers are making is that the girder that supports floor 13, could not have been damaged to the point of failure, because, they allege that the fire from floor 12 would have been the heat source to cause this, and according to them, there was no fire there (based on photo/video evidence of the exterior and windows) at that time.

TAM

 

[cooperman]

Cooperman, the premise of your entire new theory is based on the girder and support component of floor 12 having no fire at the time of event initiation, and that this is critical to the collapse, yet you have provided no evidence that NIST stated that the girder on floor 12 was critical. In fact page 19 of the report focuses on the girder of floor 13 as one of the elements that led to the collapseof floor 13, which then started the internal floor collapses that led to unspupported column 79 buckling.

TAM

We ar talking about the same girder. It held up floor 13 but was exposed to fires on floor 12.

All this bluster is just further evidence that you have not read the report.

It is simple. The floor beams under floor 13, according to NIST, were exposed to fire on floor 12 at the time of the initiating event. On reaching temperatures of 600 degrees they expanded enough to push the girder. Floor 13 collapsed. That is the NIST theory.

The problem is that there were no fires there, by NISTs own previous admission and photographic evidence. The fires were out in that area over an hour before. NIST is claiming that fire at that time raised the temperature to 600 degrees but there was no fire there. Therefore, the beams could not have heated to those temperatures and caused the failure of the girder.

Read. The. Report.

 

[aggle-rithm]

That is the NIST theory.

Got a better one?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Read. The. Report.

I think it's far more likely that you have misunderstood the report than that a group of highly qualified engineers and scientists have overlooked such an elementary blunder as the one you're accusing them of.

 

[cooperman]

Got a better one?

I do not need a better one to show that the NIST theory is wrong and dishonest.

Why do their fire simulations not match reality? Why are they claiming there was fire at the initiating event when there wasn't? If you have to lie to make your theory work then your theory fails.